Am 29.09.2015 um 23:45 schrieb coolhandluke:
based on just what i've found in the last 10 minutes, i would be very
careful about scoring anything related to {invalid|missing|extra}
headers too high. definitely test your rules extensively (with very low
scores) before rolling them out to produc
On 2015-09-28 14:32, Joe Quinn wrote:
If you don't want to be getting those emails, they are spam and you
should score it something reasonable that doesn't prevent you getting
other desired messages. While I don't have any specific examples of
ham without Message-ID, it's not a stretch to imagine
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Philip Prindeville wrote:
I’m getting a lot of messages from head-hunters, my wife’s auto dealership,
etc. that look like they’re being generated by legitimate [sic] email
campaigns, but they don’t have a message-id.
Since the message-id needs to be universally unique, th
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:22:20 -0600
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> I’m getting a lot of messages from head-hunters, my wife’s auto
> dealership, etc. that look like they’re being generated by legitimate
> [sic] email campaigns, but they don’t have a message-id.
Yes, we see that quite a bit.
> RFC-5
On 9/28/2015 2:22 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Though listed as optional in the table in section 3.6, every message
SHOULD have a "Message-ID:" field. Furthermore, reply messages
SHOULD have "In-Reply-To:" and "References:" fields as appropriate
and as described below.
This is m
